counter customizable free hit
About This Website

This blog is intended to showcase my pictures or those of other photographers who have moved beyond the pretty picture and for whom photography is more than entertainment - photography that aims at being true, not at being beautiful because what is true is most often beautiful..

>>>> Comments, commentary and lively discussions, re: my writings or any topic germane to the medium and its apparatus, are vigorously encouraged.

Search this site
Recent Topics
Journal Categories
Archives by Month
Subscribe
listed

Photography Directory by PhotoLinks

Powered by Squarespace
Login
« urban ku # 135 ~ fiction and truth | Main | civilized ku # 61 ~ $57,000 worth of 'civilized' »
Wednesday
Nov142007

urban ku # 134 ~ 'truth'

grandjurybldgsm.jpg1044757-1153694-thumbnail.jpg
A truthclick to embiggen
For those of you who have not, as Paul Maxim opined, "avoided Mark's invitation to express their thoughts on "truth", like it was a visit to the dentist", let me offer the following for your consideration.

Amongst the many definitions of the words 'truth' and 'true' are these; 1. being or reflecting the essential or genuine character of something; 2. conformity with fact or reality; 3. a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like.

In light of these notions, let me ask this question (as one example of a zillion I could ask) - have you never seen a photograph that not only accurately depicts the (pick one) visual ravages, tragedy, insanity, brutality, devastation of war and, by so doing, also conveys clearly and without reservation at least one human 'truth' about such things - something that every rational human being knows to be 'true' about war?

The fact that a 'truth' or something that is 'true' about war is not the whole truth about war does not make that 'truth', untrue or false. There undoubtedly would be more 'truths' about war to be discovered and to know but, once again, I do not see how that negates a truth that any given photograph of war might convey.

Reader Comments (3)

"Tibi ipsi dic verum ~ To thine own self be true"

All I can warrant is that my photographs truthfully represent how I perceived my subject matter and the emotions that I experienced while capturing the images. It's not about what I "saw", it's about how I "felt".

I refuse to apologize for any manipulation I use on my images since, as a former chef, my view has always been that I'm doing nothing more than assembling a recipe -- one uniquely my own -- from raw ingredients.

If my work isn't your cup of tea, no problem. I thank you for the time you gave me and I hope the next artist you encounter is more to your liking.

November 14, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterSean McCormick

This is about as much as I can manage at the moment.

I don't think we've avoided dealing with the concept of Truth "like it was a visit to the dentist" as Paul Maxim has suggested. It's a topic that requires more than a few minutes of thought to formulate a response. Philosophers have been working on it for most of recorded history, so I don't think we're likely to resolve it here in a matter of hours or days.

According to Wikipedia, "There are differing claims on such questions as what constitutes truth; how to define and identify truth; the roles that revealed and acquired knowledge play; and whether truth is subjective, relative, objective, or absolute."

Mark has contracted his assertion that photographs can contain "the truth" -"With words, many of them are the truth." - to containing "a truth" -"I do not see how that negates a truth that any given photograph of war might convey." He's gone from metaphysical objectivism to metaphysical subjectivism with the substitution of a definite article for an indefinite article. Whether photographs contain either - or any truth - will continue to be debated long after we are gone.

November 15, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterKent Wiley

No no no... I should have worded that better. I'm suffering from a low grade case of pneumonia at the moment and my thought processes are somewhat muddled.

The comment was meant generally, not directed towards you specifically. I'm not going anywhere -- I'm still busy trying to solve the puzzle that your images represent for me. :-)

November 15, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterSean McCormick

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>